Conversational actions and category relations: An analysis of a children’s argument

Abstract

This paper presents an analysis of conversational actions and category relations exhibited in an episode of argument between a brother and sister during a family meal. The paper is based on two sets of auspices: on a conversation analytic concern with the interconnection between the sequential and categorical 'layers' of organization to which parties to talk-in-interaction are demonstrably oriented, and on 'Sacks' Conjecture' regarding children's culture and adult-child 'culture contact'. In terms of these auspices, the analysis shows that the children use both sequential and categorical cultural resources to produce their argument. To adapt a concept of Garfinkel's (1967) -the documentary method of interpretation -the category relationship between the children is the underlying matter that the sequential particulars are used to reflexively document and constitute. Specifically, through the sequentially organized particulars of degradation and resistance the children recognizably and reflexively constitute their category relationship.

“You must eat the salad because it is nutritious”. Argumentative strategies adopted by parents and children in food-related discussions at mealtimes

“…The studies on argumentation represent the fourth research strand on family discourse at mealtimes. Despite the focus on narratives being the first genre to appear in communication with children (Aukrust & Snow, 1998;Georgeakopoulou, 2002), the observations of conversations between parents and children during mealtimes prove to be an activity which is essential in teaching children the argumentative strategies that they can use for a variety of goals in many different contexts (Dunn, 1988;Hester & Hester, 2010;Arcidiacono & Bova, 2011a;Bova, 2011;Bova & Arcidiacono, 2013a, 2013b, sometimes even by avoiding an argumentative discussion (Laforest, 2002). Bova (2013) shows that parents, more often than children, put forward arguments in support of their standpoint, while children often avoid putting forward arguments, as they are not always expected to provide reasons to support their standpoints.…”

Gimme! Gimme! Gimme!: Object requests, ownership and entitlement in a children's play session

“…are made relevant for local interactional purposes, and as a result 'talked into being' (Eglin and Hester, 1992;Sacks, 1992). Children use membership categorisation devices as one of the set of cultural resources (Hester and Hester, 2010) available to organise their peer interaction. The invocation of a membership category, and/or its associated 'rules of application' (Baker, 2000), is used by children to control access to toys and for inclusion in activities (e.g.…”

Category Relations, Omnirelevance, and Children's Disputes

“…According to Maynard (1986) the dispute ''takes hold'' in the third turn when the original disputable ''is defended by the first speaker'' (Church, 2009, p. 12). Another complementary strand of work has used MCA to investigate children's disputes (Bateman, 2012;Butler, 2008;Butler & Weatherall, 2006;Danby & Baker, 1998, 2000Hester & Hester, 2010) and it is the approach used in this chapter. The potential payoff is that will offer insight into children's relationships, how these may be involved in their disputes, their own analyses of what is disputable and how these disputes are then organized.…”